Like it or not the churches people on these forums loved to attack are typically designed and built well within the guidelines of the Church. That leaves personal taste. While you might not like something, there may be 100 that do. You’re not the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. The Catholic Church is through the teaching magisterium.
…]
“…accurately reflect Catholic thought” according to whom? You? It doesn’t work that way. If the local bishop does approve the design then it effectively does come down to personal taste.
Bishops and other clergy say and do things every day that go against the Magesterium of the Church. It happens in architecture too. And it is perpetually funny that many people (not
necessarily you) who favor loose regulation of the liturgy and our liturgical spaces run screaming to the magisterium for cover, but when the Church doesn’t endorse their other pet projects (gay marriage, women priests, etc) the magisterium suddenly doesn’t matter. I know I paint with a broad bush, but those people are out there.
Back on topic:
Even when things are technically “allowed” by one bishop or another, we still have three criterion left to judge it by that have nothing to do with personal taste:
- how it fits into the Church’s tradition and continuity
- how well, objectively, it accomplishes the functions of a Church (glorifying God, raising minds to heaven, etc.)
- how prudent was the choice of design (decisions which are technically allowed can still be judged based on their prudence i.e. utilizing female alter servers is allowed, but people can debate its prudence)
I hope this sets up clearly the criteria which I think we ought to use in judging these churches; even if churches
can be built as in those pictures, that doesn’t necessarily make them
good churches.
I am not saying, and I don’t think others are saying, that the churches people have posted images of here are evil or sinful or whatever words you want to use. Nor are we saying that it was somehow illicit to build those churches. We are saying it was *imprudent *or *unwise *to build those churches. We are saying those church designs are objectively inferior to other possible designs. And I believe that we can be objective in our assessments, regardless of personal taste.
For example, two architects may submit bids for a new church, one in a gothic style and the other neo-byzantine. There will be many people who prefer one style over the other. But if both designs equally accomplish the goals of a church, then I could not, with integrity, say the winning gothic design is inferior to the neo-byzantine design I preferred (or vice versa).
Now, lastly:
I think in your response to me you fall victim to the very same negative tendencies of which you have accused me. You argue so forcefully that my opinion on church design doesn’t matter yet in doing so you are implying that your opinion on the topic is better or more informed than mine. If I am no arbiter, then you are no arbiter. If we take what you have written at face value, then faithful Catholics could never have a discussion on this issue or many others.
Enough to make someone leave the Church.